I have actually started to reads the report and it makes very interesting reading, to say the questionnaire was loaded is putting it mildly.

A lot of the people who disagreed with the report had said that ease of access should be one of the main considerations as to location of the units.

They can not even come up with a figure as to how many operations a year would count as to improving a surgeons success rate, some have said a surgeon would need to operate more than 400 times a year for improvement in success rate.

"Leeds was also commented on favourably by many respondents who had prior experience
of it. Large numbers also mentioned:
Its ability to provide a range of services in one location
Its central location and large population served."

That extract is taken from the report, if you want to read the entire report it's on line.

It just shows how some one can get their information completely wrong enter link description here and yet when new information comes to light just ignore it.

This link started off with a head line more suited to the Daily Mail and with no real proof.

And today, Dr John Gibbs, chairman of the steering committee for the Central Cardiology Audit Database (CCAD), which supplied the data, said the mortality figures were preliminary and had not undergone the 'usual rigorous checking process'.

'I'm absolutely furious,' he said. 'This data was not fit to looked at by anyone outside the committee.

So not only had the original findings been ignored but now Sir Bruce Keogh is trying to use data that at best is questionable to try to justify his decision.

If I have to have a serious operation, and was told that it could be done at the local hospital, however my chances would be a lot better if I traveled to a major hospital 100 miles away. All I would say is " When can you fit me in at the major hospital" and I'd arrange travel to get there.

The same is for any 'service' in life, If you want the best, you have to be prepared to put yourself out to get it.

carver

Good to see that you've already decided, based on nothing, that the data is wrong.

Sir Bruce Keogh, on the other hand, has said the data suggested a problem. While an investigation is conducted to see if that suggestion is shown to be right, it is obvious that surgery has to be stopped at Leeds.

Would you want to be the one to tell parents 'We were concerned about what was happening but did nothing and that's why your child died'?

The whole point about having assessments and outside scrutiny is that doctors working in a unit are the last ones to see a problem.

At this point, we don't know if Ms Brown is right to say some operations were wrongly excluded.

But we will know, once the enquiry is complete. In the meantime, allowing surgery to continue would be completely the wrong thing to do.

Terry Brown we are not talking about adults who can understand why their parents can not be at their bed side, we are talking about young children who need parents with them to comfort them at a time when they need to be reassured.

The consultation was legally flawed into the decision to shut Leeds down and now surprise some one comes up with a decision that is also based on flawed data.

"Good to see that you've already decided, based on nothing, that the data is wrong" no more than you did with your headlines "High Court Judge Imposes Death Sentences "

Fourm member you don't have children so you have no idea what it would mean to have to send a child maybe 3 hours away and have no chance of being with them when they are being operated on, and that journey has to be undertaken every day, 3 hours there and 3 hours back, thats if you have a car.